Dak Prescott's ceiling McNabb/Hasselbeck?

[Calvert28]

Just now, Danger said:

You SPECIFICALLY referenced 2000. Which was absolutely not his MVP caliber season. LOL

Wrong again, that was 2001 which was the only season where he was considered a "Legit" MVP candidate with the 11 votes that Yin-Yang brought up and I was discussing why was he considered Legit but not Dak who performed far better in his single season then mcNabb did in his.

[Calvert28]

1 minute ago, Danger said:

Nah, I'm just gonna call someone out on their bs.

Is that's whats in the bush you keep beating around?

[KellChippy]

7 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

Wrong again, that was 2001 which was the only season where he was considered a "Legit" MVP candidate with the 11 votes that Yin-Yang brought up and I was discussing why was he considered Legit but not Dak who performed far better in his single season then mcNabb did in his.

McNabb had roughly 4000 total yards and 30 tds that year in a bad offense and was by far the best player on his team. Without him, they don’t sniff the playoffs. 

If you solely look at stats while ignoring context, then yes, Dak’s season was more efficient. 

[Calvert28]

2 minutes ago, KellChippy said:

McNabb had roughly 4000 total yards and 30 tds that year in a bad offense and was by far the best player on his team. Without him, they don’t sniff the playoffs. 

If you solely look at stats while ignoring context, then yes, Dak’s season was more efficient. 

Dak took over for a team that went 4-12 the year prior when we lost our pro-bowl QB, while being a 4th round pick who many thought should have gone undrafted came in with no expectations and managed to lead this team from that 4-12 record a year prior back to a 13-3 record again on a team that proved time and time again that Romo was the lynch pin of the entire offense and went completely limp when he wasn't in there. Hence the 4-12 record.

I remember 2001, I remember Faulk and Warner being the greatest football players on the planet and McNabb wasn't even McNabb then. You're right he was valuable because of the horrendous line he was playing behind and he got recognized for it. I'm not the one who ignored conext, i'm not the one who said well he got 11 MVP votes so obviously he was more valuable then Dak was in his year. No I remember both seasons very vividly because I spent most of it following other teams rather then my dissappointing Cowboys who Jerry royally f*&&ed up since the 90's. Again what made him more valuable and a legit MVP candidate over Dak in their respective seasons?

[KellChippy]

53 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

Again what made him more valuable and a legit MVP candidate over Dak in their respective seasons?

The fact that he was the best player on his team. As you said, Faulk and Warner were the two best players in the league but didn’t finish top two in voting.  McNabb likely stole some votes from them.  Dak would never steal votes that year because Zeke was arguably better and that o-line was rightfully hyped beyond belief.

McNabb was a legitimate candidate simply because he received tangible votes.  It’s not like he got one vote like Vick in ‘04.  

I don’t think anyone would argue he deserved the MVP over Warner or Faulk.  If you are saying that makes him an illegitimate candidate, I wouldn’t argue with that.

 

[Calvert28]

23 minutes ago, KellChippy said:

The fact that he was the best player on his team. As you said, Faulk and Warner were the two best players in the league but didn’t finish top two in voting.  McNabb likely stole some votes from them.  Dak would never steal votes that year because Zeke was arguably better and that o-line was rightfully hyped beyond belief.

McNabb was a legitimate candidate simply because he received tangible votes.  It’s not like he got one vote like Vick in ‘04.  

I don’t think anyone would argue he deserved the MVP over Warner or Faulk.  If you are saying that makes him an illegitimate candidate, I wouldn’t argue with that.

 

Faulk was MVP that year and Warner was the best player on that team. Yet Faulk was still the one who won. As for McNabb he wasn't the best player on his team. I know defensive players dont ever get the same recognition as offensive player but Dawkins was the highlight of that Eagles defense and led it to being one of the most dominant defenses of that year. Dude was a guided missle in that secondary.

And what I'm asking is what made him so much more deserving as a "legit" candidate as it was claimed when Dak arguably did more that year then he did? Yea you can argue that Dak was a game manager. But then again so was McNabb for the most part up until the 2003 season when Reid really took off the training wheels and gave him some legit threats to take advantage of his vertical passing game and then he peaked in 2004. 2001 McNabb gained more confidence and Reid allowed him to start taking more chances with his passing game then in the previous 2 years. Really mcNabb's first 2 years was spent turning himself into a pocket passing QB which he thoroughly dedicated himself too. But the fact that Staley was able to stay healthy for more then just a handful of games and them getting both Mitchell and Thrash went along way to helping McNabb with not being the only play maker that year. So lets not pretend like the entire offense was inept.

[rocky_rams]

The Dak/ McNabb argument isn’t fair. 

A more accurate comparison is Dak/RG3

[Malik]

2 hours ago, rocky_rams said:

The Dak/ McNabb argument isn’t fair. 

A more accurate comparison is Dak/RG3

RGIII's career as a starter was already over by the time he was where Dak currently is. 

[Soko]

10 hours ago, Calvert28 said:

i'm not the one who said well he got 11 MVP votes so obviously he was more valuable then Dak was in his year. 

Yeah, no one said that. You made that up. You said McNabb was an MVP candidate and so was Dak, yet only one has ever received MVP votes. 

And for someone that allegedly isn’t ignoring context, you seem to have no issue comparing passing statistics of two players that played within two different passing eras. 

Dak wasn’t an MVP candidate, sorry to burst the big billion dollar bubble. You have no argument for his season over Brady, Rodger, Carr, or Ryan’s. The voters thought so too.

[BAConrad]

8 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Yeah, no one said that. You made that up. You said McNabb was an MVP candidate and so was Dak, yet only one has ever received MVP votes. 

And for someone that allegedly isn’t ignoring context, you seem to have no issue comparing passing statistics of two players that played within two different passing eras. 

Dak wasn’t an MVP candidate, sorry to burst the big billion dollar bubble. You have no argument for his season over Brady, Rodger, Carr, or Ryan’s. The voters thought so too.

Jesus Christ ? I was wondering when someone would bring this up. 

Thank you for doing so. 

I mean, it's hilarious to watch people who are trying to just blindly defend their team's QBs when it's so obvious to everyone else that said QB is not in fact very good. (See: Mariota thread) 

I mean don't get me wrong. We've all done it. It's like when someone trips and falls in public. It's funny as s*** when you watch it happen. But you laugh knowing you've also been the guy on the ground embarrassed and in pain.

But still. Comparing QBs, notably statistically, from this era now and any other era that's pre 2006 basically, is so egregiously stupid

[Calvert28]

24 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Yeah, no one said that. You made that up. You said McNabb was an MVP candidate and so was Dak, yet only one has ever received MVP votes. 

And for someone that allegedly isn’t ignoring context, you seem to have no issue comparing passing statistics of two players that played within two different passing eras. 

Dak wasn’t an MVP candidate, sorry to burst the big billion dollar bubble. You have no argument for his season over Brady, Rodger, Carr, or Ryan’s. The voters thought so too.

I made it up? He actually received a vote. Go look it up, my point being is that the number of votes does not mean you were the most deserving of the award.

As usual you didn't read what was being discussed and it wasn't I who brought up McNabb in the first place, in fact the OP was asking what the comparison should be for Dak. Like seriously it's part of the original freaking post bud.

I think you are just deliberately being a hater serving no purpose or reason to your argument. Never once argued he deserved it over any of those guys in any of these posts. Again go read.

30 minutes ago, BAConrad said:

But still. Comparing QBs, notably statistically, from this era now and any other era that's pre 2006 basically, is so egregiously stupid

Not nearly as stupid as someone who either can't or just doesn't read.

[Malfatron]

floor is Jake Plummer

ceiling is Jake Delhomme

[SBLIII]

Dak is still really young for a QB. He still has plenty of potential to become a top 10 QB imo.

[Soko]

7 hours ago, Calvert28 said:

I made it up? He actually received a vote. Go look it up, my point being is that the number of votes does not mean you were the most deserving of the award.

As usual you didn't read what was being discussed and it wasn't I who brought up McNabb in the first place, in fact the OP was asking what the comparison should be for Dak. Like seriously it's part of the original freaking post bud.

I think you are just deliberately being a hater serving no purpose or reason to your argument. Never once argued he deserved it over any of those guys in any of these posts. Again go read.

Not nearly as stupid as someone who either can't or just doesn't read.

You did make it up. No one said McNabb received more votes, therefore he’s more valuable than Dak. All that’s been said is that he’s received votes and came in second as an MVP candidate - something Dak hasn’t done. 

And yeah, you were the first one to bring up Dak being an MVP candidate. One guy said he wasn’t, you disagreed (wrongly, might I add). 

And I’m not being a hater. I’m being a realist. If you agree he had no business being ahead of nearly 13% of the league’s starting quarterbacks, then how was he a candidate? 

And yeah, I saw your post earlier, we know - “2001 not 1971”. Which would be acceptable if, you know, 2001 was considered the same passing era as 2016. The multiple rule changes that favor the offense sort of separate the two. You can pretty easily see it in the passing statistics. I’m a bigger Dak fan than the average non-Cowboys sympathizer probably is, but your statement was wrong.

[NoFlyZone]

22 hours ago, Fl0nkerton said:

Nah, McNabb was good.

Dak isn't. It's pretty simple.

It really depends on which Dak comes to play. I've been a big supporter of Dak, but also a big critic. Hes the type of guy that you root for, but he's had his ups and downs. He has obviously gotten himself into a rut stretching back somewhere around the midpoint of last season, with some small streaks of hope woven in between. He just hasn't been able to consistently climb out of the hole that he fell into. If the Dak that showed up against the Jaguars defense last week becomes more of his norm, then we're talking about a legitimate good player, just as he was throughout pretty much all of his rookie season. It remains to be seen. Even though he's in his third year starting, I would say that the jury is still out on Dak.